politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
When I was growing up in school there was only one mass shooting at the time and that was Columbine. Kids would drive to school with guns in their racks because they planned on hunting later. The notion to shoot people wasn't even a consideration. What we have isn't a gun issue, we have a mental health crisis like nothing we have seen before and we are far too unequipped to handle it. We need better mental health programs and ways for people to more easily use them from a young age.
The Columbine shooters did not use hunting guns. We have better access to mental health care than in the past. We also have greater access to more deadly guns. Countries with strong gun control do not have our problem with mass shootings. Implementing strong gun control has been proven to stop mass shootings. A lot of money has been spent by arms dealers to convince you the the problem is your fellow humans, and not the largely unregulated flow of machines of death supplied for capitalist profit.
Should we have better access to mental healthcare, and intervention programs? Sure. Funny, though, how the people insisting it's all about mental illness and not about the gun profiteers also usually oppose any public spending on mental healthcare as well.
I mean the problem is my fellow human. AI hasn't picked up a gun and shot up a school as far as I know.
I am for more efforts to provide mental health care for low income people's and it should be free.
There are attempts at brain washing on both sides depending on the agenda.
I can agree that military style fire arms do not need to be in the hands of ordinary civilians that haven't undergone training in weapon safety. I believe it should be required to have yearly training on weapon safety for all fire arms.
The problem with this "both sides" bullshit is that leftist critique is nearly always targeted at systems, as opposed to reactionary 'brainwashing' is targeted at minorities
A "radical leftist" isn't out to murder anyone, they're out to disrupt the system. As far as I'm concerned, the problem is almost entirely a reactionary politics problem, not a problem of firearm training and not even one of mental health (though they are contributing factors(
Don't conflate libratory movements with reactionary terrorism
I am honestly loving your take on the subject. It actually made me think a little about what you are saying and the fact you are very respectful in your wording is wonderful.
Can you explain reactionary brainwashing of minorities a bit further?
Many far leftists I have run into have been very controversial or just plain rude so having someone speak plainly and respectfully is a nice change of pace.
I find your lack of irony refreshing, too.
I'm confused by your question though, can you clarify your choice of using the word 'of' in the question "brainwashing of minorities"?
It's so rare to run into a reactionary conservative that's so curious about left-leaning politics, thank you for your curiosity
I try to keep my perspective unbiased which is difficult because I am human after all. When conversing with someone that brings up interesting perspectives and does not devolve to name calling I try to speak with them further because those are the ones who's reasoning skills tend to be more developed and make for better conversations over all.
From how I understood what you were saying, there is a reactionary brainwashing of sorts. Perhaps I was incorrect in my belief that you meant of minorities specifically. I may have read it incorrectly.
Thanks for acknowledging your imperfect interpretation.
I used scarequotes in the phrase you are referencing, perhaps that is where your confusion is stemming from? Brainwashing was used in your comment, I was simply making a reference to your usage.
The point: reactionary politics identifies the "outsider" as the subject of opposition. Radical leftist politics identifies oppressive systems as the subject of opposition.
Hence: the use of firearms by one group is simply not comparable to the use by the other.
Hopefully that clarifies things for you.
Yes it does, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Would you agree that reactionary politics is highly based on raised emotions or high tension to the outsider? Or perhaps a lack of understanding? Or maybe a lack of depth in sight?
When identifying an oppressive system what are the markers of such a system? What qualifies as oppressive? Is it subjective to an individual or is there a science behind it?
Reactionary politics is less a coherent ideological framework and more a reflexive rejection of social change. It's almost by definition oriented against minority social groups.
Oppressive systems exist in all types, and there's a great deal of study that deals with it. If you're genuinely curious to learn more, I'm Foucault is who I am most familiar with and would recommend for anyone wanting to know more about structural analysis.
I appreciate that information. I will look into it. I appreciate your willingness to speak with me on these matters. It is always nice having civil conversations. I hope you have some wonderful days ahead and happy holidays.
Thank you both for the interesting discussion!
Such as? Where is this (supposed) "leftist" brain-washing machine supposed to be at?
It often pops up in opinion pieces or news articles just like any other propaganda mean to influence your opinions.
Pretty much the entire rest of the world thinks that the US gun lobby is batshit insane. Have real been brainwashed?
The rest of the world can do whatever they want.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Your glib response and cute little quote doesn't actually answer the question I asked. Possibly because you don't have a good answer
we have a gun issue and a mental health issue.
There are a LOT of people in America that own, or have easy access to fire arms, that shouldnt be allowed within 2 miles of one.
This is an inadequate summation I am afraid. Most of the world right now is experiencing a mental health crisis. A lot of the countries with similar populations and cultures to the US with primarily English speaking approximations - Australia, UK, Canada and the nordic nations... All of them are experiencing massive mental health and economic issues on a systemic level. There is something unique to the United States... The guns. Not just the lack of public safety measures to control guns but the culture of entitlement to weaponry and maintaining the fantasy of utilizing them against other humans in some sort of nebulous future extralegal event when some sort of universal concensus is reached that war is declared on the US government by it's rag tag highly individualist citizenry.
Unfortunately you cannot divorce the mental health issue from the gun issue in the States but neither can you solve the issue without actually addressing that guns at that level of saturation are a nightmare that causes a unique presentation of crisis. Calling for it to be addressed strictly as a mental health issue will go no where... And it's designed to go no where because as long as we are having this debate of whether it's a gun or a mental health problem neither get addressed... And quite frankly there are simply not enough mental health professionals in the field to address that demand. The burnout rate is real amongst professionals.
There were also mass school shootings before Columbine. The Ecole' Polytechnique massacre for instance in Canada had 22 victims in 1989 and was committed with a semi automatic weapon and it spurred a massive surge in gun regulation and restrictions for automatic weapons and maximum clip size capacity. The US is unique in that it is the only country to experience these mass shootings and yet refuse any wide ranging gun control reforms at a federal level in response.
The problem also spills over borders. 85 percent of weapons found to be used to commit crimes in Canada have been traced to purchases made in the US.
I actually agree with what you are saying, but I don't believe it's so black and white. I also believe the media realized the profits in outrage and terror so that's why we are constantly hammered with it.. which is likely a contributing factor in mental health issues of the country/world.
Columbine was one of the biggest ones ever at the time and a media field day, but definitely not the only school shootings around that time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)
It was the only one I was aware of so I do apologize for my ignorance. I appreciate your candor in the conversation at hand.
The media is a for profit organization that feeds on misinformation, half truths, lies, or propaganda. Reagan did the country a disservice removing the the Fairness Doctrine.
I'd say most of the issues of modern US stem from Reagan era decision making. The us-vs-them mentality took a wild turn from there forward.
Truth
It is not a mental health crisis. At all. It is a radical fascist mediasphere crisis. Centrists have constantky defended the right of radical fascists to spend all day on the airwaves edging the audience to kill for their sponsors.
Why does this only happen in the US? The whole world is having mental health issues?
Mass killings don't only happen in the US. The middle east they use bombs, missiles, and guns. If someone wants to accomplish something they will find a means. Guns are just a tool like any other thing. You can harm just as many people with a nail gun, a knife, a bomb, acid, or fire. Anything can be a weapon in the wrong hands.
I do believe there are definitely people who shouldn't have a gun but they are typically mentally unstable.
As for assault rifles. I believe that only prior military should be able to poses them since they more than likely have had extensive safety training.
Edit: I also believe that instead of glorifying mass shootings we should mock and demean the person. Too many people have it in their head that they will go down in history for such and act.
Sure. Mass killings occur everywhere but no where with the frequency that they do in the US. Middle east bombs is a terrible comparison though,. Those are acts of war not individuals picking up weapons and going on a rampage. No less awful for that, but not the topic under discussion. You didn't answer my question. Mental health issues are everywhere in the world. Only the US is racking up mass shootings quicker than days of the year. If it were just mental health, why doesn't the rest of the world show the same effects?